j-mac

This seems to me to be excuse making for the good Dr. If the 'truthers' were just attaching themselves with no real willingness from Dr. Paul to embrace them, then why did he attend so many events on campuses put on by them?


No, Paul embraces to the letter the sentiment of America not getting entangled in overseas squabbles, and there is merit to that, but his mistake was in thinking that any following was better than being froze out as a third party nutjob. He just picked wrong.


j-mac

__________________
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

- Ronald Reagan

Hatuey

Can you explain which part of the 1st amendment the government violates by not giving FOX an interview?

This is the second time I ask. Here is the text of the first amendment :

LII: Constitution

What law has Congress created abridging the freedom of speech? What law did Congress make abridging the freedom of the press when the White House denied an interview?(This should be good!)

__________________
Is Intolerant Because He Won't Let The Intolerant Run Other People's Lives.

j-mac

OMG! It is right there in black and white....


j-mac

__________________
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

- Ronald Reagan

jallman

I don't think they are necessarily violating it. However, I don't think it's disputable that they aren't showing good faith in upholding the first amendment.

Polynikes

Talking points….right. Yet you say nothing to refute anything I said. Nice ad hominen..once again.

Of course every politician attempts to control the media, but I don't remember Bush, Rove, or Cheney deliberating trying to deny CNN access to interviews, or calling them everyday by name.


Please don't try the counter of "Well, CNN and MSNBC weren't bashing Bush the way Fox is bashing Obama.."

I approached this in a non-partisan way, highlighting the fact that it is scary the approaches being taken by this administration to limit the press..

__________________
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Jefferson

winston53660

And fox news is showing good faith?

__________________
http://winstoncreative.com/

Hatuey

They aren't violating it. They denied an interview. Do you think it's a violation of your first amendment whenever somebody refuses to speak to you?

I'm Just a little annoyed by the hyperbolic. I mean these are the same people who didn't have a problem with 'Free-Speech zones' coming here screaming about the outrageous violation of FOX News a clearly right wing news entity being denied an interview.

How many interviews did Bush officials deny to MSNBC because it was clearly biased against their administration? Bush wouldn't give an interview to people who called him a racist, moron, torture proponent etc. So why would Obama give one to people who treat him with disrespect?

The government regardless of the party in office has always at it's own discretion exercised it's right to free speech(which includes the right to deny interviews) since the days of Washington.

Btw...love your new avatar

__________________
Is Intolerant Because He Won't Let The Intolerant Run Other People's Lives.

jallman

FOX News doesn't have a hand in governing my life. The White House does. I expect a little more from them.

And you're also presupposing I have an issue with FOX News. I don't.

jallman

Totally disingenuous. FOX News isn't "anyone", they are a news outlet and a major one at that. The White House isn't me. It is the executive branch of a government that is installed by the people. It has an obligation to answer to those people by being accessible.

I don't know of anyone on this board who DIDN'T have a problem with the whole "free speech zone" issue. I know I did...I had a major problem with it and nearly everyone I interacted with here had a problem.

I don't recall a huge stink about Bush denying interviews to MSNBC.

Free speech rights are extended to The People to protect them from the State. There is no reverse extension of those rights to The State. The State doesn't have freedom of speech which would include freedom of censorship by ommission.

Thanks. It's pretty festive, I think.

Ockham

Well, to be honest your post also is out of rules for radicals... you don't address the post or it's content you ridicule it by dismissing it "talking points" and therefore inferring irrelevance.


--- "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.